Is China's Control of the Internet Slipping? 422
Garp writes "According to the BBC news site the Chinese governments grip on the internet is slipping. Ever since they allowed use of the internet, the Chinese have been monitoring the information that has been flowing (jokingly referred to as the great fire-wall of china), in an attempt to ensure 'bad' philosophies don't infect their people. However, the internet is having a much more profound affect, out of the control of the government ..."
Prolly for the better. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say that is prolly for the better for everyone, since we will be able to reach more people with more information. Perhaps this will help in the human rights debates that have been rampant in China over the past years.
Re:Prolly for the better. (Score:5, Interesting)
The point which is missed in 90% of the posts on this board is that the information most damaging to the communist party comes from inside china, not from outside. External events have a much lesser effect on a country the size of China than internal.
The Soviet Union did not fall because of Reagan, or any policy of the West. It fell because its own people rejected it, first in the satelite states, finally in Moscow. Solidarity, the Polish trade union brought down the USSR in the end. The Berlin wall fell when a bunch of students attacket it en masse and the guards in the watch towers disobeyed orders and refused to shoot.
The issues in China are complex, they are no longer a Stalinist communist regime, they are not democratic, they have adopted a 19th century model of capitalism in which the actual role of the state is to protect the oligarchs and exploiters. The gerantocracy that runs the country is largely in its 80s and their principle driving principle is fear. In particular fear of a return to the days of the cultural revolution of Mao and fear of partition into separate states that are dominated by foreign powers as happened at the turn of the century when the US, Germany, France, Britain and Japan each carved out spheres of influence.
China is rapidly industrializing and output is rising fast. Economically China will be one of the maor powers within ten years. Already the Chineese middle class is larger than the US middle class. As with India, China is a first world power whose strength is obscured by a vast third world hinterland.
Change is comming, but it isn't going to be driven by external forces. In fact external forces are more likely to be counterproductive. The critical mistake made by the Tiannanen Square protesters was building the statue of liberty. Up to that point the communist party was affraid to crush the protests, in particular they were affraid that the soldiers would refuse to fire. However the statue of liberty was a symbol of an alliance with a foreign power and the troops could be sent in to crush that.
Re:Prolly for the better. (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you - but the ideas of the west provided a source of inspiration to the peoples of Iron Cutain.
It's not like they revolted to become more like Saudi Arabia or eastern Africa. The revolted to become more like the west - whom they thought had a better life.
Part of that was helped by communications - Radio Free Europe and the BBC shortwave probably helped more than we could imagine. These were funded by the west for exactly this reason - and after the revolution, afther they have served their call, both have had their funding curtailed.
So the policy of boradcast radio did help spread our ideas - so much so that the poor blockes spent vast resources to block their signals.
Re:Prolly for the better. (Score:5, Informative)
If it is ideas that you want to measure then remember that Karl Marx wrote Das Capital in the Reading room of the British Library.
What you appear to be unable to grasp is that whatever was done from the outside had mush less effect than what went on on the inside. The attempt by the idiotic right to claim the credit for destroying the Soviet Union is pure self delusion. The people of Eastern Europe took their own freedom, whatever we did amounted to a small effect on the margins.
That is why there has been little change in the example you cite - Saudi Arabia and Eastern Africa. Those areas have been exposed to Western ideas for far longer than Russia ever was, including the experience of British colonial rule.
The BBC World Service is certainly an effective propaganda tool. I can't say the same for Voice of America which is all propaganda all the time and about as interesting to listen to as Radio Moscow was and for about the same reason.
If you want to effect change then there are much more effective ways to do so than by puffing yourself up with self importance. The US claim to be the torchbearer of human rights is not generally accepted in the rest of the world. The practice of seggragation was only recently abolished in the south, during the cold war the US regularly conived to replace democratically elected regimes with brutal murderers who would do Washington's bidding. It is a great pity that the current administration cheered on the attempted coup in Venezuela rather than condemning it instantly as the rest of the free world did.
Re:Prolly for the better. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the term Capitalism is Marxist in origin and originally refered to an economic system in which control of the means of production are controlled by means of control of capital.
In Das Kapital Marx wrote about capitalism almost all the time, the bits about the communist system to replace it are little more than an afterthought in comparison. What is somewhat hillarious for European readers is the way that many of Marx's arguments have since been adopted by the right as a defense of capitalism. This is not suprising since Marx was one of the first economists to really explain how capitalism worked and he was not completely against it. What he wanted was a means of harnessing the productivity of capitalism with a social settlement that did not mean that 95% of the population lived in dire poverty. However since Marx is not a politically correct figure to praise the good ideas that Marx had are usually ascribed to Adam Smith.
The political system we live in today is neither capitalist, nor socialist by 19th century definitions. This is something that should have really upset the Marxist idealogues since acording to the theory that is not meant to happen.
Capital is far more broadly distributed than ever before and access to capital is no longer restricted to a tiny class of plutocrats. The type of capitalism that Marx wrote about is practically dead.
Apart that is from in countries like China where control of capital and control of the state are both restricted to a tiny governing elite.
Re:marx (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually wonder if he really believed that. Although he tries very hard to persuade people that the revolution is at hand he also said that philosophers have analysed the world in many ways, the real task is to change it.
I think that Marx's prophecy of a revolution should be considered in the same light as 1984, not primarily prophecy but instead a means of effecting change. Victorian Britain was scared of revolution above all else, revolution meant the horrors of the French reign of terror and the Bonapartist attempt to establish dictatorship across Europe.
Victorian society did change, they may have changed in part because Marx's prophecy meant that liberal reformers were listened to and the elites accepted gradual change rather than risk revolution.
What he didnt count on was publicly held stock, wide spread education, and that the investment of the extremely wealthy would make the whole country more wealthy.
I think that Marx's ideas reached their sell by date long before we got to the point where the middle class was the majority of the population and most people owned stock. Certainly after WWI with the Bolshevick coup the forces of reactionism are doing their utmost to reform social conditions before the revolution sweeps them away.
Incidentally, the term 'Bolshevick revolution' is a misnomer, actually the Tzar was removed from power in a relatively peaceful revolution led by the Menchevicks who tried to establish a liberal democratic state. The mistake they made was not announcing an end to the war which is what gave Lenin and Stalin an opportunity. The proletariat cared more about ending the war than the promise of a democratic society.
Widespread changes... (Score:3, Insightful)
China's GOV has to face the music. They can't and won't control what their people see on the internet--at least not forever. As more and more people there use the internet, those people will find ways to express their views.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as there are search engines, email, and word of mouth, those who WANT to read the real story will be able to.
This leaves those majority of the population still sucking in the dross they are fed. At the moment in the UK you can't move for people sucking up to the royal family on the TV. The mass population couldn't give two shits about them and want them gone - but the BBC pays for a big concert, a million people go along to see bands for free, and we're told its a royalist revival!
Enough people just go along with this and decide 'hey - yeah - lets do that! royals! I love them!' because they don't form opinions, they consume them.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Monarchy in the UK is just a silly show, but that doesn't stop the majority of the people from supporting it. I guess a lot of people support it because it gives them something to read about in the papers.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2)
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2)
I don't give a damn about the cost. But I do give a damn about the symbol of oppression that a monarch is.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2)
This is assuming that there are still independant and direct news sources on the Internet. The Powers that Be, including ICANN and the current crop of news companies, seem dead-set on trying to prevent that. Skyrocketing bandwidth costs, "cybersquatting" accusations, lack of affordable bandwidth for your ordinary citizen, gradual firewalling-off of non-corporate entities to prevent "copyright infringement"....
In case you haven't noticed, its getting harder and harder to run a small site of any sort without resorting to buying space from an established web host. Who can and will cut you off at the first sign of trouble, be it legal or simply "high" bandwidth use due to popularity. Yes, that's right. Do a good job of news reporting and get a lot of visitors, and you'll be slapped with huge fines for your troubles.
Its wonderful when the very companies who are most threatened by the power the Internet gives to the individual control its backbone, isn't it?
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2)
Many web hosts, large and small, will charge small sites by the GB, so you can use all you want.
I can't help but think this post came from 1999 or something.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2)
I'm mainly looking at all the popular sites that've had to shut down or severely cripple their services due to unannounced bandwidth caps or utterly ludicrous traffic fees. This may have changed recently, as you said, due to Cogent's financial troubles, but that doesn't help all the sites that've had to shut down in the past six months when their ISPs started springing these fees (and "backpayments" for their use in the past) on them.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming that the Chinese will use an excluding system whereby they run around blocking objectionable content. But what if they used an including system, whereby they only allowed people to go to sites that they approve? So they don't need to worry about blocking new addresses: only things they've checked out and signed off on will get through.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why do we all know this? If someone came up to you and told you that everything you had ever learned and been taught all your life was a lie (or at least a very highly distorted version of the truth) and that your primary sources of information were largely innacurate, would you believe them? Would you be willing to turn your whole outlook on life upside down? While you might if you were particularly independent, the average Chinese citizen won't. From living in China, I'd say that close to 90% of the young intellectuals, who have known about the Tiananmen Square incident and other debacles still trust the government news. They figure that the western news sources are just as biased, and while they are a definite curiosity, western news is just as unreliable as communist news. They have been taught all their lives that a free press is unreliable and prone to error, and they believe it.
Also, why can't they control the internet? They own all the infrastructure, the ISPs, the cable, everything. You're not very informed to think they just can't turn off whatever they want. They block all of geocities and angelfire, and often block cnn and other news sites when some issue that is sensitive to the government is happening. Don't underestimate what a determined dictatorship can accomplish, especially when they hold all of the cards.
The really funny thing is that most Chinese ISPs and websites self censor their content, out of fear that they'll be totally shut down. The flow of information in China is not out of control, and it won't be for a long time.
Re:Widespread changes... (Score:2, Interesting)
A savvy Chinese citizen can simply view google's cached copy. They've got to know in general what they're looking for, but try this example:
A CNN story about Falun Gong here [216.239.35.100]
The chinese internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Well they let the cat out of the bag and now they can't get it back in. Politicians underestimate the possibilities of the internet, nothing new here.
The interesting idea is that AFAIK China has the largest population on earth, what will happen to the internet once the chinese politicians give up and let them roam free? Even if just a small part is on the net we will begin to see the influence of chinese culture. And what about language? Today english is de dominant language in the internet, but there is an awful lot of chinese speakin people that might get connected. Time for a new language class anyone?
Re:The chinese internet (Score:5, Funny)
Mesa say yousa not worry so much bout speakin chinese, worry more bout speakin english
-Jar Jar
Re:The chinese internet (Score:5, Funny)
My favorite metaphor for this comes from a book by Peter S. Beagle [white-mountain.org]:
"You ever try to put birdshit back into the bird?"
Most Chineese don't live where they have internet (Score:4, Interesting)
Lee
Re:Most Chineese don't live where they have intern (Score:3, Informative)
This statement is indicative of western ignorance of modern China.
The literacy rate in China is 81.5% [CIA WorldFactbook], which when you consider the difficulty of memorizing 10's of thousands of ideograms is pretty good. There are over 11 mil university students in China right now, which means roughly 15% of people go on to university.
Second, agriculture represents only 15% of the chinese economy (50% industry and 35% services) [CIA WorldFactbook]. While apx. 50% of the population is still rural (far higher than in the US) that's far from "the vast majority".
Third, in 1990, China had 102 cities with populations over 1 million [UN Statistics Division] and probably a lot more today given China's rapid urbanization (which creates a lot of problems). In fact, as many people (apx. 210 mil in 1990) live in China's "large" (1mil+) cities as in the entire United States.
China is, of course, still relatively poor compared to the US and Western Europe. And large regions of western China are still underdeveloped. Given income levels, it is no suprise that that only a small percentage use the Internet (it's not suprising that A/C's, TV's and other modern conveniences are purchased first). But we should try to update outdated views of China as we start the 21st century.
Re:Most Chineese don't live where they have intern (Score:3, Insightful)
Mind you, I didn't ventured into the really small villages (pop less than 1000) and rural areas, but I could tell things are a lot different that what I used to perceive it as.
I was in a fishing village in souther China with no paved roads, but they had buses with VCD videos playing. And in the same area were more Internet cafe than I'd image people could use. Sure enough when I went in there were half a dozen kids, no more than 12 years old, playing network games.
I spent 2 hours in there checking email and reading news. I certainly didn't feel like anything was being blocked. They had 128bit I.E. browser so I was able to do my banking too.
I could go on forever. Bottom line is that people should stop making ignorant comments about China unless they've been there.
Re:The chinese internet (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm - not at all what I experienced. I went to Beijing about 10 years ago - also as part of a group. There were no restictions at all placed on us - there was an official interpreter, but no compulsion to go on the organised tours. I spent a lot of time wandering about. Things were a little tense as I was over there near the anniversary of Tiannemen Square (which I visited on the actual anniversary - that place is huge: jokingly I said beforehand it would take 1/2 hour to walk across it. This was an underestimate.), and there were a fair number of police wandering about. I even saw some dissidents being arrested (outside of the official government residence near Tianemmen Square).
One evening (armed with my trusty phrase book) I wandered into one of the large blocks that form neighbourhoods (these are 3 by 3 smaller blocks, and there seems to be some sort of district zoning thing going on). These are definitely not tourist places. In these I found a small resturant and proffering my phrase book opened to the resturant page I pointed at "What do you recommend?" and got what was easily the best meal I had there - and the cheapest by a mile.
Interestingly there was absolutly no problems at all in getting into China - send passport details to tour operator. The provided a group visa and we - literally - formed a line in the order of the names on the visa and walked through immigration. The whole thing took about 5 minutes. No problem getting out. This was the only place on the whole trip that photography was forbidden - in common with almost ever other immigration hall I've ever been in.
Admittedly I didn't go outside Beijing except to the Great Wall (although some others did) so things may well be diferent elsewhere. The only other place where there was a bit of an atmosphere was on the upper floors of the English Language Bookshop where the pirated software is reputedly sold.
So, yes, China is in some ways a closed nation, but nowhere near as controlled as you are making out. It is also a very odd place - when you first arrive at the western hotel (which looks like a hilton anywhere else in the world) and get in the taxi (whose drivers are nutters) and see the McDonalds, and Coke, and bright, neon, shop signs, it all seems comfortably familiar. OK - they don't speak the language but I'm from Europe - I'm used to not speaking the language when I'm on holiday. After a few days, however, you'll notice something that makes you realise how different this place is - for me it was realising that there were no advertisments.
Re:The chinese internet (Score:2)
Check your math -- 0.5% of a billion is only 5 million.
No, China is an "interesting" market because the rest of the industrialized nations (North America, EU, Japan, etc) are already glutted.
Re:The chinese internet (Score:2)
I think it will remain the dominant language even with this, simply because it is the dominant language anyway, Internet or not. The fortunate thing about the Internet starting out initially in English is that a lot of people knew it as their second language already.
mark
Change from the inside (Score:4, Insightful)
The logical conclusion of this is that the much-protested firewall that China has put around itself will be of no help at all in supressing dissent, as long as chat rooms and even e-mail exist.
Re:Change from the inside (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
Presuming that "counter-revolutionary" thoughts always enter from the outside and could be theoretically controlled by a firewall neglects the basic fact that China is filled with enough people on the inside that can think for themselves.
When a rational idea or a truth is communicated, it will resonate all through the inside.
OTOH, China, like the U.S. and Russia, has a great deal of national pride. While the party in power has used that as tool for its own ends, there's nothing preventing a popular movement from incorporating "patriotism" in a way that might be unhealthy for everyone in the long term. Remember some of the causes of WWW 1!
Re:Change from the inside (Score:4, Funny)
I think we can hold Tim Berners-Lee completely responsible for that.
Re:Change from the inside (Score:2)
Yes, ol' Tim is definitly aiding the terrorists.
The W3C advocates open standards, and we all know that is Evil.
After all, if we have open standards the terrorists have already won.
Re:Change from the inside (Score:2)
How about controls the other direction (Score:2)
China's AS's are great candidates for blocking given the hourly scans from chinanet.cn and other notorious abusers. Scans, relentless spam, and other ilk seems to be the primary product of China's information technology society (and we thought their manufacturing created garbage!).
Then there's last week's article about China launching attacks on US Internet networks in order to "balance the world order" or such. And I want AS connectivity to China for what again?
Snip the cables and let them spam themselves...
*scoove*
Re:Change from the inside (Score:2)
You'd also think they'd recall something military commanders and radicals have known since there were military commanders and radicals: It's much easier to attack a fortress (or a movement, or a country, or pretty much anything) from the inside than from the outside.
In an odd turn of events, it may someday turn out that Internet was the biggest Trojan horse of all.
A ceip.org document on the matter (Score:4, Informative)
In this paper the authors illustrate how two authoritarian regimes, China and Cuba, are maintaining control over the Internet's political impact through different combinations of reactive and proactive strategies. These cases illustrate that, contrary to assumptions, different types of authoritarian regimes may be able to control and profit from the Internet. Examining the experiences of these two countries may help to shed light on other authoritarian regimes' strategies for Internet development, as well as help to develop generalizable conclusions about the impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule.
The whole document is here [ceip.org]
Re:A ceip.org document on the matter (Score:2)
Just like mp3 trading... (Score:3, Interesting)
When it comes to mp3 trading, usage of illicit drugs, or discussing Chinese politics, there are three simple options in the hands of the government:
1. Allow them,
2. Put police everywhere (think 1984), or
3. Change how people think about such activities (public anti-drinking-and-driving campaigns are a good example of this).
The Great Firewall of China might help the government identify (and eliminate) any rebellious leaders, but it won't stop the spread of ideas and ideals.
Re:Just like mp3 trading... (Score:2)
People don't generally ignore the laws against murder, for example. Most people agree that outlawing killing people is a good thing, and they understand why, so folks obey that law. Very few people understand why they must drive $value MPH/KPH, so they usually don't, unless there's a danger that they'll be caught.
Re:Just like mp3 trading... (Score:3, Insightful)
More people are killed by reckless drivers who think they have the skill/technology/brains to drive at unsafe speeds, than by murder.
Nothing gets on my nerves more than some yahoo in a way-to-big SUV tailgating me at 80MPH simply because he has no f-ing clue about such concepts as reaction time or stopping distance.
Of course, when his unnecessary and reckless conduct causes my death it is an "accident," while a woman who shoots her abusive husband dead in his sleep is considered a "murderer"
Re:Just like mp3 trading... (Score:2)
You Can Never Truly Filter (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an article I wrote not too long ago about how to do it:
- - - -
Breaking Through Any Firewall or Proxy
There's different reasons for breaking through firewalls/proxies.
1) Get completely unfiltered access to the internet.
2) Get unmonitored, or secure, access to the internet.
3) Access services normally disallowed by the firewall.
The article will demonstrate various ways to get by most implementations of firewalls/proxies. In absolutely no way am I responsible if you do anything you're not supposed to, or even supposed to, be doing. If you get caught and fired, tough shit. If you access illegal information, tough shit. If you open up a hole and somebody breaks into your computer, tough shit. I'm not responsible. (This is for the lawsuit-happy bastards out there.)
Anyways, lets begin:
For all methods, it is expected that you have access to a machine on the other side of the firewall, and that it has access to whatever you need.
Your machine will be the CLIENT, and the machine on the other side of the firewall will be the TUNNEL. The accessed machine will be the SERVER.
Furthermore, this article also assumes you a basic knowledge of your browser's configuration, installing software on your CLIENT and TUNNEL machines, and logging in via SSH.
A Linux/Unix box is preferable for the TUNNEL, but not required by any means. The software is freely available for any system.
1) HTTP Tunneling Through SSH
Often, only some ports will be firewalled (80, 21, etc) for caching, filtering, and monitoring purposes. However, they leave direct access available for other ports (25, 23, etc).
If your browser must use a proxy to access the web, but you don't require a proxy to get mail, this is probably the implementation.
If you have direct access to non-popular ports, you can access almost any service as long as you change the port. Generaly, the main purpose of bypassing this firewall is to have unfiltered and/or unmonitored web access. The method can of course be modified to meet your needs.
Install a proxy server (ie: tinyproxy) on the TUNNEL machine. For security purposes, set the listening port to an odd port (ie: 8999, REMOTE_PROXY_PORT) or set access rights to only localhost. Install an SSH (ie: sshd) server on the TUNNEL. For security purposes, set the listening port to an odd port. Do NOT set access rights to only localhost because you'll access the proxy through ssh.
Install an SSH client on the CLIENT machine. Select a random port (LOCAL_PORT) and then set the browser's proxy to localhost:LOCAL_PORT.
Run SSH with LOCAL_PORT forwarded to REMOTE_HOST:REMOTE_PROXY_PORT.
(CLI ssh: ssh -L LOCAL_PORT:REMOTE_HOST:REMOTE_PROXY_HOST -l USERNAME REMOTE_HOST)
Once connected and logged in, if the proxy and the tunnel are working correctly, you've got completely unfiltered web access.
(NB: Using a SOCKS5-compliant proxy would offer an almost completely unfiltered and unmonitored connection, as long as the application supported SOCKS proxies.)
2) SSH Tunneling Through HTTP
Some implementations allow only HTTP access, while blocking all other ports.
Check out Corkscrew at http://www.agroman.net/corkscrew/
Corkscrew is a tool to allow full SSH access through a strict HTTPS session. Then through the SSH access, you can create another tunnel to allow access to all other programs.
Conclusion)
Hopefully this allows some of the people out there to worry a little less about getting caught doing things they're not supposed to. The reason for using SSH in both cases is because it's encrypted. In the event you are caught, at least you're only caught for breaking teh rules, there's nothing additionally criminalizing.
SSH can also be used for a lot more interesting things. Using Windows, you can instal Cygwin, ssh into a *Nix box and tunnel over X connections, and end up working as if you were actually at the machine.
Anyways, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
--unformed
Re:You Can Never Truly Filter (Score:2)
Or Click Here [bsdvault.net]
The moral is... (Score:2)
- Princess Leah, a long time ago and far, far away...
There is always someone smarter than you...unless you are Jason Isaacs in Armageddon and get to be "pretty much the smartest man on the planet". Trying to lock down a civilization will only ever work for a short period.
Whatever causes us to complain about laws and/or rules in th U.S., we do have it pretty great in comparison.
Re:The moral is... (Score:3, Interesting)
They can (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.linuxforum.net, it's in Chinese, good luck!
It's really easy (Score:2)
Triangle Boy (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/02/15/anony
This CNN article from Feb. 2001 talks a little about it. But at that time it supposedly hadn't been deployed. Since then I've heard that Chinese Internet users are using Triangle Boy for secure connections to the outside world, bypassing the government firewalls.
Re:You Can Never Truly Filter (Score:2)
I see a great future for stenography.
Who was it who first said... (Score:4, Funny)
internet censorship (Score:2, Interesting)
With how fast content is created and updated on the internet, even with active filtering software, would require a fulltime staff of tens of thousands of people just to find blockable content.
I imagine the Chinese goverment is slacking in their efforts to completely block "objectional" content, just by not throwing enough manpower at it.
Now, I in no way condone censoring any information, but lets get real...
If the chinese goverment wants to control what their citizens think, their going to.
Now, what needs to be done, is some of that new-fangled "electronic warfare".
What I mean by that, is for people who care about censorship to setup free speech propoganda websites wherever they can.
There going to have to be diffrent, so the automatic software doesnt automatically filter it.
And its going to need to have real information.
If you care about billions of people being censored, stand up, and do something about it.
If not, sit down, go back to whatever you were doing, and forget that anything ever happened.
Anyways, thats just my take on things.
-Una
How is this different from corporate control? (Score:5, Interesting)
We will not be forced into oppression, but seduced by it and ultimately the internet will become a weapon of tyranny.
Re:How is this different from corporate control? (Score:2)
Well, for starters, Ted Turner's Castro News Network can't have you thrown into the gulag for watching Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.
See laogai.org [laogai.org], etc.
Re:How is this different from corporate control? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or if you don't think this happens, even Newt Gingrich appealed to it in a 1997 address to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, when he said that business leaders and advertisers "ought to take more direct command of the newsroom."
Scary.
-----rhad
Re:How is this different from corporate control? (Score:2)
One of the most important sites - see also debkafile
http://www.debka.com/
Re:How is this different from corporate control? (Score:5, Informative)
Of all the interesting statistics, the most important is that the number of TV stations, magazines, and media outlets over all has increased tremendously, all the while being more consolidated then ever before. This strikes me as surprising. The illusion of diversity in literature and media is rather frightening. In 1947, 80 percent of daily newspapers were independent; in 1989 that number had shrunk to 20 percent. In 1981, the 11,000 or so magazines were owned by 20 companies, but as of 1988 that number had fallen to three. Books are the same, being controlled by seven major firms. This is not to say that no other sources of information exist, just that the concentration shows no sign of slowing down. Which should strike you as disconcerting.
Likewise, music is controlled by 5 large groups, representing 84 percent of the US market. (yes, the RIAA) Radio has 60 percent of its content controlled by 3 broadcast groups. And again in movies: In 1985, the 12 largest theater owners had 25 percent of the screens, as of 1998, that figure was about 61 percent and rapidly increasing. The 6 top firms by this point accounted for 90 percent of overall theater revenue. Not surprisingly, 132 out of the 148 "widely distributed" movies in 1997 had deals with these 6 vendors. This also explains the drop in foreign films, from 10 percent in the mid 1970s to 0.5 percent in the 90s.
Again, in broadcasting, 6 firms control 80 percent of the nations TV and cable, and 75 percent of its content. To summarize, Professor Ben Bagdikian wrote, "despite more than 25,000 outles in the US, 23 corporations control most of the business in newspapers, magazines, books and movies." The top six, FYI, make more revenue than the next 20 combined.
One hardly needs evidence to notice that such heavy concentration of power, (in this case, information) results inherently in bias. Witness the pro-american rhetoric seething from current media and the "anti-terrorist" news reports that for all we know may be made up.
The most saddening thing is that the Internet was specifically designed to prevent concentration of information. It was built to promote the free-flow of any idea or voice. But its being swept away in a tidal wave of corporate lobbying and associated legislation, as well as patriotic/moralist/ideological campaigns to stomp out "opposing" viewpoints. Criticize china all you want for their "information suppresion". We are no better, we just don't see it. Apathy and hypocrisy go hand in hand....
-----------rhad
Re:How is this different from corporate control? (Score:2)
An example of ideological repression would be the PATRIOT act. The definitions implied are too broad. Non-mainstream ideals could be argued illegal strictly based on a politically motivated desire to appear to fight "terrorism". In the same vein, the numerous bills that attacked online pornography represent a dangerous trend in censorship. While not necessarily in the same line of thought as media outlets, it does highlight a thought process all too common. More information on censorship can be found here: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/ [eff.org]. Another great resource is Lawrence Lessig's book, "The Future of Ideas" [amazon.com], his whole book basically revolves around the current trend to consolidate the Internet much like physical news and media.
sorry, I cannot address this better right now, work is piling up.
-----rhad
Re:How is this different from corporate control? (Score:2)
Let's see:
Who else do you need?
Welcome to life 2.0 (Score:2)
The section about the mine collapse was interesting as well. For those who didn't read the article, there was a mine collapse killing 81 people the "the government" did not want publicized, to the point of threatening journalists. It was released on a web site, and before long, mainstream journalists started picking the story up as well. This is really a revolutionary thing in a country where the press has historically been 100% controlled.
The public being informed is a major step in a country progressing into a "modern free government." Imagine the economic powerhouse they county may be able to transform itself into if more power and rights are given to the people.
-Pete
Mine Disaster (Score:2)
Ironically... (Score:3, Interesting)
A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that there were McDonalds restaurants in Russia fed the public there the image of how Americans live, and with that as a model, it became increasingly obvious that Communism was failing to fulfill it's mission of Utopia. In 1984, Orwell realized that as long as the government asserted that everything was improving, people would not be too inquisitiveabout the subject. In Russia, this became impossible, and the people lost faith in their government.
In China, it seems as though a similar evolution is occuring; The alter-ego of Soviet Commuism, Chinese Communism, is being exposed to it's antithesis. Russian Communism focused, as I understand, mainly on supression and communitization of materialism, but was then faced with the holy grail of materialism, McDonalds. Chinese Communism, now that they have seen how materialism works, focuses on supression of intellectualism among their masses, and is now faced with intellectualism's holy grail, the internet, which allows the masses to see the intellectual side of Democracy.
Obviously, the Orwellian Prophecy has come partially true in this part of the world.
"Inside an imposing building in Beijing is the Ministry of Information Industry, where a hi-tech police force keeps watch over the internet 24 hours a day. Its job is to keep ordinary Chinese people from accessing unhealthy information. That could be anything from Playboy to the BBC." -BBC News, China Loses Grip on Internet.
"The Misistry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different form any other building in sight. It was an enormous Pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, three hundred meters into the air... [it] concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts, [anything from Playboy to the BBC]" -1984, by George Orwell.
The only difference between Oceania and China is an external one, and it is essential. China has no external enemy to pour material into to prevent it's citizen's rising standard of living. Instead, it has Europe, the United States, and many other regions of the world that have accepted democracy and capitalism.
Re:A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:4, Insightful)
If this theory is meant to be taken literally, then it is an insult to the Russian people. They aren't that stupid, nor ignorant, at least those that I know in Moscow and StPetersburg. Even many years before the fall of Russian Communism many Russians were well aware about the world outside Russia and the failings of their political system. To say that Russian Communism fell because of McDonalds is such as gross simplification of what happened that it is meaningless.
Re:A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:4, Informative)
It seems fairly clear to me that this is more of a catchy slogan than something that is intended to be taken literally. It encapsulates an important concept though -- it's not enough for "many" Russians to be aware of the failings of the system to bring about change -- the average guy on the street has to see it, and preferably experience it first hand-- it's not really enough to read about it, because even if you're "aware", you will probably not get angry or otherwise excited about something that seems so distant. You feel it so much more if it's rubbed in your face. McDonalds symbolises a first-hand exposure to Western culture, and the relative failings of their own system, as experienced by the common man (as opposed to pontifications on the failings of the system by an academic elite)
Re:A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:2)
Re:A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:2)
Absolutely. It dismays me that in the USA people these days it seems that people cannot formulate an intelligent response to complex situations where there are multiple variables. Everything gets reduced to good and bad, goodies and baddies, black and white, left and right. Everything is dumbed down, even politics and history. That's why so many people on Slashdot were shocked to read stuff like the letter that Peruvian congress man wrote. Shocked by intelligent, eloquent, unbiased reasoning, because it's so uncommon these days.
Re:A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:2, Interesting)
The theory you refer to is otherwise known as The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention [aber.ac.uk]. And before you mod me +1 funny, I'm being serious - it was first espoused by Thomas Friedman in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree [lexusandtheolivetree.com]. It's an excellent read, a great perspective on globalisation and its differing effects on various parts of the world.
-- james
J-Curve Revolutionary theory (Score:3, Informative)
The idea, basically, is that all is well until the public's expectation for change becomes greater than the rate of change allowed by the government. When that happens, you get a revolution.
This is why Reform is so dangerous to totalitarian regimes - it's not the reform itself, but the rate of reform that does the 'damage'. Gorbachev wanted to reform the USSR's Communist Party - but he went too slowly, the people's expectations got too high, and the Berlin Wall fell.
The same is happening in China, and not just in the Internet-space. Economic reform almost caused a revolution - which manifested inself in the Tiananmen Square protests - because it was percievd as going too slowly, and NOT because the Chinese wanted the supposed end result of a Western-Style liberal democracy.
It's actually the process of change that people want, and not the end result. (which is good, as it means we have things like, you know, Progress).
Re:A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:5, Insightful)
First off you can't suppress something and spread it throughout the community at the same time.
Second, Chinese Communism split from what was Soviet Communism back in the 1950s as China pissed off the USSR by declaring that they were going to Do It Their Way.
Nowadays calling the Chinese government Communist is a joke. A joke perpetuated primarily for the benefit of the old party members who still wield control. They have even whipped up an excuse that allows self-proclaimed capitalists to join the Chinese Communist Party! The best explanation of China's current policy is this:
The CCP leaders are riding in a taxicab, ahead is a fork in the road with one path leading to Communism and one to Capitalism. The driver asks: Which way should I go? After a brief discussion, the leaders tell the driver to signal a turn to Communism, but to actually turn towards Capitalism.
The CCP wants to keep control over information, but the party isn't stupid. There is just an ongoing high level conflict on government policy, the Internet is just one of the controls being exploited by each side.
Re:A Theory of Progression in Government (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't a prophecy and the comparison to the West, in particular the relationship of the UK and the US was quite deliberate.
Orwell's objective was to make people realise that the USSR was a totalitarian regime and Stalin a tyrant. This was not something that many people wanted to hear in 1948 just after the Russians had done most of the fighting to stop Hitler. The Nazi-Soviet pact had been largely forgotten by this time.
1984 is full of ironic and sarcastic references to the BBC where Orwell (Eric Blair) worked during the war, manipulating truth in exactly the same way that Smith does. Two majot themes in the book are the erasure of history (suppression of the Nazi-Soviet pact) and the shifting aliances between the 3 great powers.
Incidentally Orwell was not anti-socialist, he was anti-communist. He was a member of the Labour party and wrote the 1945 Labour manifesto.
Sliipping... (Score:2)
They maybe able to speell though.
Triangle Boy (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.safeweb.com/tboy_whitepaper.html
Here is the gist of the free program.
Anybody who downloads triangle boy gives the ability to secretly lend his or her Internet address to users behind restricted firewalls. That, in turn, hands such users the electronic keys they need to receive unfettered access to the Web.
just perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
sorry this got long (and scatterbrained)
-tid242
Re:just perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
Is corporatization of the internet a problem? Yes. Is it in any way comparable to the situation in repressive countries like China? No.
Just some perspective.
What China Doesn't Want Its People To Know... (Score:2)
Mei Ling: Hey Wang, come here!
Wang: What is it?
Mei Ling: This web page says that our General Gao's chicken is made with MSG!
Wang: Those commie bastards!!
US Companies helping the Chinese Gov't (Score:2)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/19
Posted by timothy on Monday February 18, @11:02PM
from the can-you-read-this-in-beijing dept.
chowbok writes: "The Weekly Standard writes that despite expectations, the Chinese Government has been very successful in suppressing free internet access for their citizens. Key to this success was the assistance of Cisco, who built a giant firewall tailored to the state's needs, Yahoo (who helpfully censors search results and monitors online chats), and other Western companies."
I would like a internet-free china, like (Score:5, Funny)
America would be loved...err. hated because of porn, er loved because of porn..err..shit what was my point!
What the Chinese actually do (Score:4, Interesting)
They dont exactly do that. They block them occassionally - sometimes for months at a time.
Now I cant get to the BBC. Last week I could. Now I can get to CNN. (I am in China).
I think they do this to make the BBC and CNN a difficult to get to news source - while the peoples daily is always online...
Also most of the people here dont give a damn about democracy - go into one of the many internet bars round here - everyone is playing Counter Strike or using ICQ in Chinese...
I am in China (Shandong) and am posting as an AC as I forgot my username and password... Also it might be a bit unwise to post my name - tho I would if I hadnt forgot my username and password.
Vin Cerf said it best (Score:2)
Intenet censorship for China is like the old "marching Chinese" idea (if everyone in China marched 10 abreast past a given point, the line would never end because it would take more than one generation for the population to pass that point). Only now the question is, can the Chinese government shoot people faster than they can get on the Internet?
Heh? (Score:2)
But, it seems, the issue isn't even really the firewall - the reference in the news article is to an INTERNAL event that spread via email and a web posting.
The Internet is a can of worms, and the worms have been let loose. If China wants to keep control of the information, they are simply going to have to drop the 'net.
Good luck, guys!
Chinese looking for a way out... (Score:2)
Over the past few months, I've notices a few hits in my logs of Chinese IP addresses trying to retrieve "www.yahoo.com" "www.cnn.com" and such from my server - trying to see if it is an open proxy.
I wonder if these are Chinese people trying to find an un-blocked proxy, or if is is just script-kiddies and spammers looking for a free ride.
OT: Its effect not affect. (Score:2)
You can have a profound effect (on something), or you can do something to affect (something).
There are other things wrong, but those are best left for another morning.
I'll go away now...
Individuality (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a serious problem before you even get to the huge disparity between the populations of men and women in said generations. Old values and mores will have to adjust; China cannot imprison a generation or two to keep the status quo. Strict authoritarinism and control of information are the two main tools of the Chinese government. Both of these tools are rapidly becoming obsolete.
Cat
freenet? (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried out Freenet recently, and if there were any political dissidents using it, it wasn't apparent. The single biggest application of Freenet seems to be child pornography.
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:2)
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:2)
He did some fantastic PR work. Everything from getting women to smoke to convincing the anerican public that the banana republics were communist
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:4, Insightful)
before going back.
I absolutely agree but the fact that the government stops the people from seeing the bad news makes people want it more. In the US no one wants to know what evil acts
are done on their behalf.
The worst thing of all is some other people in this thread who without thinking will state that the media always tells the trough. There is no point even trying to tell them
otherwise because its all loony talk to them. Lizard men and all that.
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:2)
Secondly, in UK one gets easy access to most US media. Eg, one can watch CNN, MSNBC, etc with basic cable. One can read washington post, NYTimes online or even buy them in larger newsagents if one cares too.
There is a vicious circle at work. The main reason that Americans are so patriotic is that throughout their lives almost everything they hear reinforces the notion that America is the best (richest, most free, most tolerant, etc)
country on earth, so why shouldn't they be proud of that. Moreover, since the majority believes this completely, it is unwise for a publication that wishes to be bought or even believed to say anything that reflects too badly on America. The media will happily complain about things like crime, drugs, morality - these are internal issues and there's no point denying they exist. There's nothing unpatriotic about discussing one's problems. However you'll never see a mainstream newspaper article saying: "if a foreign power maintained a large military presence in my country to prop up a corrupt, repressive and unpopular regime, to ensure a better deal for their corporations, I would be pretty pissed off too". That wouldn't go down well. No, the reason al-Quaida hate America is "they hate our freedom".
Foreign news is virtually never mentioned on US television unless it's in such a way as to reflect well upon America. For example, you'll get a story like - "American troops fly into East Timor to protect the natives from gangs of thugs." The earlier story: "US trained and funded death squads kill 1/3rd of population of East Timor to supress an independence movement that could damage the interests of US oil companies in nearby waters" is much less likely to make people feel good about themselves, happy with your publication, and likely to read you again. This phenomena is not unique to US by any means, but is more pronounced there than other places I've stayed.
Re:Intresting thought control method (Score:2)
feelings so you would watch more of the news even go as far as to rise the public feelings to want war.
They are doing this quite well so that anyone who speaks out against this will be slapped for being unpatriotic.
No one dares to say things like "The army killed loads of innocent people on your behalf" because that is not what people want to hear. They want to hear how great
their nation is and what good things its doing for the world.
I don't want to hear how every pair of trainers is made by some 7 year old in a country in debt to the WTO. I wanna hear how my country is fighting for freedom and
justice.
Re:A matter of time (Score:3)
scooby-dooby doooooooooooo!
Re:A matter of time (Score:2)
In a word, Yes. Why shouldn't they after they've had control over all other media. This is just another flow of information. For the Chinese government, this one is even easier to localize. It's a lot harder to have an illegal fiber optic cable network than an illegal anti-government paper distribution system.
Actually the most ironic thing is that a US software company will probably sell them some new whizbang software so they can better filter all that incoming traffic.
Re:China controls the internet? (Score:2, Funny)
"The Swiss"? Is that Al Gore's Slashdot username?
Re:P2P news clients? (Score:2)
Err....yes. It's called Usenet, is implemented using NNTP, and has been going for long before the web has existed.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:P2P news clients? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:ha (Score:3, Funny)
Despite the grand amount of clout mainstream media has, there ARE competitors. In fact, you just mentioned a whole bunch in your post? Does that not strike you as a little odd?
Re:ha (Score:2)
Yes, because we frequently arrest people for having anti-government opinions. Happens all the time.
Dumbass.
Re:You just can't even imagine another goverment (Score:2)